From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755713AbdJLLSB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:18:01 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:37253 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753189AbdJLLSA (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:18:00 -0400
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:17:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: mike.travis@hpe.com
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Bin Gao <bin.gao@linux.intel.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@hpe.com>,
        Andrew Banman <andrew.banman@hpe.com>,
        Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@hpe.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/kernel: Skip TSC test and error messages if
 already unstable
In-Reply-To: <20171005164716.507003714@stormcage.americas.sgi.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710121314440.1930@nanos>
References: <20171005164716.233817374@stormcage.americas.sgi.com> <20171005164716.507003714@stormcage.americas.sgi.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, mike.travis@hpe.com wrote:

> If the TSC has already been determined to be unstable, then checking
> TSC ADJUST values is a waste of time and generates unnecessary error
> messages.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <mike.travis@hpe.com>
> Reviewed-by: Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@hpe.com>
> Reviewed-by: Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@hpe.com>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c |    8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> --- linux.orig/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
> +++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ void tsc_verify_tsc_adjust(bool resume)
>  	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST))
>  		return;
>  
> +	/* Skip unnecessary error messages if TSC already unstable */
> +	if (check_tsc_unstable())
> +		return;
> +
>  	/* Rate limit the MSR check */
>  	if (!resume && time_before(jiffies, adj->nextcheck))
>  		return;
> @@ -89,6 +93,10 @@ bool tsc_store_and_check_tsc_adjust(bool
>  	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST))
>  		return false;
>  
> +	/* Skip unnecessary error messages if TSC already unstable */
> +	if (check_tsc_unstable())
> +		return false;
> +
>  	rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_TSC_ADJUST, bootval);
>  	cur->bootval = bootval;
>  	cur->adjusted = bootval;

This hunk rejects and I really can't figure out against which tree that
would apply.

Btw, there are two incarnations of tsc_store_and_check_tsc_adjust().
Shouldn't the !SMP variant get the same treatment?

Thanks,

	tglx